Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 391 of 11.10.2017 Decided on: 13.2.2023 Jatinder Kumar aged about 49 years S/o Late Sh.Amrit Kumar, R/o B-42/457, Bagichi Mangal Dass, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Improvement Trust, Patiala through its Chairman and Executive Officer, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.
- Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act QUORUM Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member PRESENT: Sh.H.S.Sidhu, counsel for complainant. Sh.Pawanpreet Singh Sidhu, counsel for OPs. ORDER - The instant complaint is filed by Jatinder Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Improvement Trust, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
- The averments of the complainant are as follows:
That allured by the representations made by the OPs, complainant applied for one flat for residence of his family.The application of the complainant was duly processed and found in order by the OPs.Flats were allotted by means of draw of lots in February,2012.Complainant was allotted flat No.16-A on 6th floor in the scheme namely Sardar Patel Enclave, Near Khalsa College, Patiala.The OPs assured that the flats would be completed and the possession thereof shall be given to the allottees upon completion of the flats till October,2014 and as such installments had to be paid alongwith interest after October,2014 by the allottees who do not pay the same by that date.The flats were not completed by the OPs upto the stipulated date. Upon the assurances of the OPs for completion of flats and delivery thereof to the complainant, the complainant deposited the entire amount of Rs.19,14,750/- in lump sum by raising housing loan from the State Bank of Patiala(since merged into State Bank of India).But despite of getting the amount deposited in lump sum , the possession of the flat was not delivered, even the flats were not completed and furnished according to the scheduled period so fixed and represented by the OPs at the time of advertisement of the scheme and issuance of brochure.Since the flats could not be completed by the agreed time, the OPs waived off interest to all the allottees even for the installments so deposited by them after October,2014 till the date of completion of flats in October,2016. Since the OPs waived off the interest on installments so paid by other allottees for the period after October,2014, so the complainant was entitled to be paid interest on the amount already got deposited from him by the OPs.In this regard complainant approached the OPs but the OPs failed and refused to make any payment despite repeated demands. Further the possession of the flat was merely shows as delivered to the complainant on 19.3.2015 in papers only but it was not actually delivered to him on that date since the construction of that flat was not completed even by October,2016.The quality of the flats is not as per specifications and standard norms. Even the lift in the above said complex has not been made operational properly till date. The OPs have not properly executed and yet completed civil and electric works. Thus, the services of the OPs are deficient in nature and they also indulged into unfair trade practice. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint. - Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement having raised various preliminary objections.
- On merits, it is admitted that the OPs work for the development of residential and commercial schemes in Patiala and had advertised for allotment of flats in their newly development residential scheme named Sardar Patel Enclave,Near Khalsa College, Patiala by issuance of brochure and distribution of pamphlets in Patiala city and also the OPs boosted about the quality, worth and for decent construction of the flats. It is denied that they advised the complainant to deposit the amount in lump sum. The possession of the completed flat was handed over to the complainant. Complainant is not entitled to any payment as he had deposited the amount on his own free will. There is neither any deficiency in service nor the OPs have committed any unfair trade practice.After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents, Exs.C1 to C44 and closed the evidence of complainant.
- On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence affidavit,Ex.OPA of Sh.Suman Kumar, JE of the OPs alongwith documents, Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 copies of application and letter of possession,Ex.OP3 copy of letter dated 9.2.2015,Ex.OP4 copy of letter dated 18.6.2012, Ex.OP5 copy of extract of broucher,Ex.OP6 copy of letter dated 14.8.2018,Ex.OP7 copy of letter dated 12.6.2017 and closed the evidence.
- Admittedly vide allotment letter bearing memo No.PIT/12/1783 dated 18.6.2012,Ex.OP4, flat No.HIG 18 Sixth Floor 16-A, area 1876.53 sq. yds in Sardal Patel Enclave was allotted to the complainant.Ex.C40 is the brochure of the OPs whereby they made advertisement with regard to the aforesaid scheme.As per clause 12 of this brochure the OPs were to handover the possession of the flat in question within 2 ½ years from the date of allotment.Thus for the first instance the cause of action had arisen to the complainant in the year 2014 when the possession was to be delivered .Therefore, he could challenge the same before this Commission within two years i.e. upto October,2016.
- Further he wrote a letter to the OPs Ex.OP1 for possession of the flat in question having paid the full payment. From the letter dated 19.3.2015 Ex.OP1, it is evident that the possession has been delivered and the complainant has acknowledged the same and put his signature in English. He has also mentioned in the letter that the department has completed the work in all respects and he is taking the possession of the flat in question.
- Therefore, 2nd cause of action had arisen to the complainant when he has taken the possession on 19.3.2015 but he has filed the present complaint on 11.10.2017, after the expiry of the period of two years. He did not knock the door of the Commission within period of limitation of two years. However, the complainant has taken the plea that actual and factual possession of the flat in question was given in the month of October/2016. In this regard no cogent and convincing evidence has been produced on record by the complainant.
- In view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
- The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
-
-
G.S.Nagi S.K.AGGARWAL Member President | |